Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
Or should be satisfied going into work for below-inflation pay rises while those who they are caring for are getting higher percentage pay rises than they are.
If people are striking despite being paid too much they should be sacked and replaced with others who want to do their job for less, but if there's no others to do the job then they have the leverage and should be paid a reasonable rate. How is that any worse than a cohort of voters using their voting leverage to ensure that all the money available goes to them, while all the taxes go on others?
People need to take responsibility for themselves first and foremost. If you want someone to do a job then you need to pay them a rate they're willing to work for - or in a free market you can find someone else instead. But nobody has a right to demand others work for them on incomes they're not happy to be paid.
Junior doctors want a 25% payrise, the national average rise in 6%
Have you never taken part in negotiations?
25% is an entirely appropriate starting point to demand when the Government are offering others 11% and you only 2%.
If the Government want to short-change you by 9%, then start demanding much higher than what you will actually accept, then meet in the middle. Government says 2%, you say 25%, meet in the middle at 13% or just 2% higher than what the Government is prepared to pay those who aren't working for a living, and you have an agreement.
If the Government didn't want strikes they shouldn't have offered some people 11% and others 2%.
They didn't. The only people getting 10% or more from the government are those who earn much less than junior doctors ie state pensioners, those on benefits or minimum wage or junior criminal lawyers doing legal aid
Yep, those who are not working. State pensioners aren't all earning much less than junior doctors since the taxpayers money going to them is on top of, not instead of, any other pensions they have.
If people not working are getting 10% or more, then so should those who are working.
Those who are working should never be getting less than those who are working. If 10% is the baseline for non-workers, then its the minimum those who are working should be getting. Since when was the Conservative Party the Party for people on benefits rather than people who work for a living?
People working for a living all earn more than those on benefits, the minimum wage after all is going up by 10% exactly the same as benefits are going up by.
Just unlike Truss backing libertarians like you One Nation Tories like Hunt and Sunak don't want to force the poorest in out society into deeper poverty given rising cost of living
Bullshit.
Someone with a high defined benefit pension and the state pension can be earning much more than someone working for a living - and paying much less percentage in tax too since their earnings won't be subject to either the graduate tax or National Insurance.
So you're talking out of your arse.
Only the state pension went up by 10% NOT defined benefit pensions
How much did the limits for private pension contributions for the wealthiest go up by? 50% was it? Plus scrapping of lifetime allowance.
Mainly to encourage doctors not to retire at 55 but to keeping paying into their enormous pensions tax free!!!!
A lovely way to describe a policy designed to make the rich richer of course. For some doctors it may have that impact. Yet for other doctors it will increase their ability to reach financial independence and security at an earlier age and some will therefore retire earlier too. Swings and roundabouts in terms of number of doctors but clearly the rich will get richer faster from the policy.
Just train more doctors and improve conditions so that the job is more enjoyable and less reliant on high earnings. I know that can't be completed in 5 years, but as a country if we never do the things that work but take more than 5 years, then that is how we end up in managed decline.
Wake me up when Labour and the Tories are both in the 30's. That will be game on....
Next month we should have an "Outlier" showing that
I see we have returned to overanalysing hypothetical polling where the Tories have a scored enhanced by an indeterminate margin, for reasons unstated, at an undefined point in the future.
BJO please explain.
Only time will tell.
But next month sees every Pensioner get a 10% uplift, same for people on benefits, sees the Sun come out, and variable energy bills take a seasonal dip. just think a steady swingback is underway
Surely you must have spotted we are passed
peak SKS?
If you mean, do I expect Labour to get 50% at a general election, then the answer is “of course not”, but such scores were chiefly a function of She Who Must Not Be Named ‘leading’ the Tories. Labour’s poll ratings remains very healthy, as much as it clearly pains you to see.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
Or should be satisfied going into work for below-inflation pay rises while those who they are caring for are getting higher percentage pay rises than they are.
If people are striking despite being paid too much they should be sacked and replaced with others who want to do their job for less, but if there's no others to do the job then they have the leverage and should be paid a reasonable rate. How is that any worse than a cohort of voters using their voting leverage to ensure that all the money available goes to them, while all the taxes go on others?
People need to take responsibility for themselves first and foremost. If you want someone to do a job then you need to pay them a rate they're willing to work for - or in a free market you can find someone else instead. But nobody has a right to demand others work for them on incomes they're not happy to be paid.
Junior doctors want a 25% payrise, the national average rise in 6%
Have you never taken part in negotiations?
25% is an entirely appropriate starting point to demand when the Government are offering others 11% and you only 2%.
If the Government want to short-change you by 9%, then start demanding much higher than what you will actually accept, then meet in the middle. Government says 2%, you say 25%, meet in the middle at 13% or just 2% higher than what the Government is prepared to pay those who aren't working for a living, and you have an agreement.
If the Government didn't want strikes they shouldn't have offered some people 11% and others 2%.
They didn't. The only people getting 10% or more from the government are those who earn much less than junior doctors ie state pensioners, those on benefits or minimum wage or junior criminal lawyers doing legal aid
Yep, those who are not working. State pensioners aren't all earning much less than junior doctors since the taxpayers money going to them is on top of, not instead of, any other pensions they have.
If people not working are getting 10% or more, then so should those who are working.
Those who are working should never be getting less than those who are working. If 10% is the baseline for non-workers, then its the minimum those who are working should be getting. Since when was the Conservative Party the Party for people on benefits rather than people who work for a living?
People working for a living all earn more than those on benefits, the minimum wage after all is going up by 10% exactly the same as benefits are going up by.
Just unlike Truss backing libertarians like you One Nation Tories like Hunt and Sunak don't want to force the poorest in out society into deeper poverty given rising cost of living
Bullshit.
Someone with a high defined benefit pension and the state pension can be earning much more than someone working for a living - and paying much less percentage in tax too since their earnings won't be subject to either the graduate tax or National Insurance.
So you're talking out of your arse.
Only the state pension went up by 10% NOT defined benefit pensions
How much did the limits for private pension contributions for the wealthiest go up by? 50% was it? Plus scrapping of lifetime allowance.
Mainly to encourage doctors not to retire at 55 but to keeping paying into their enormous pensions tax free!!!!
"Mainly": lots of other people too. An dz more IHT evasion for the wealthy. YOu must be absolutely delighted.
Voted on by French MPs in a guillotine motion apparently.
I hope a guillotine motion means the same in France as it does here. They do have a tendency to be a little more enthusiastic about the use of a guillotine.
A question for Foxy, involving absolute pie in the sky thinking and as with everything I opine on on PB I know absolutely nothing about, is there a theoretical case for the following?
The gov build an absolutely ginormous super hospital with thousands of beds on an old military base or airfield.
The super hospital is also a teaching hospital for huge numbers doctors and nurses and is built from the start with all singing and dancing accommodation to house them and instructors in.
They get their accommodation and training for free as long as they work there for an agreed period of time in order to ensure the system gets its money’s worth out of them.
The super hospital benefits from economies and efficiencies of scale so it can have all the kit needed for everything hopefully then resulting in much quicker “service”.
Patients can have the option of going to this hospital miles away from home and family to speed up their treatment (I personally would prefer this as I’m grim and wouldn’t want visitors whilst I’m in hospital and there must be a few more grinches like me around). It can also be used as overflow in emergencies.
Result is a reduction in pressure on hospitals everywhere else, a potential quick route for those who don’t mind travelling for it and an increased pipeline of doctors and nurses available.
I’m sure that it’s totally impossible or unworkable but maybe some sort of solution.
The Scottish government built such a hospital. It has been an unmitigated and expensive disaster.
That’s a shame - any key reasons why it was a disaster or is it just that such a thing cannot work?
Would also want some more proof on it than just the jaundiced view of one overpaid doctor in England
Wake me up when Labour and the Tories are both in the 30's. That will be game on....
Next month we should have an "Outlier" showing that
I see we have returned to overanalysing hypothetical polling where the Tories have a scored enhanced by an indeterminate margin, for reasons unstated, at an undefined point in the future.
BJO please explain.
Only time will tell.
But next month sees every Pensioner get a 10% uplift, same for people on benefits, sees the Sun come out, and variable energy bills take a seasonal dip. just think a steady swingback is underway
Surely you must have spotted we are passed
peak SKS?
If you mean, do I expect Labour to get 50% at a general election, then the answer is “of course not”, but such scores were chiefly a function of She Who Must Not Be Named ‘leading’ the Tories. Labour’s poll ratings remains very healthy, as much as it clearly pains you to see.
Yes SKS is currently 5% above Corbyns GE 2017 result
I dont think he will maintain that personally and you do have a lot of faith in him though so thats all good.
One of us will be proved right.
I think Lab will have a mediocre set of LE results which we dont have long to wait for now.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
Indeed, junior doctors earn more than trainees at criminal law firms or pupils or junior criminal barristers. They also earn more than accountants In their early years outside London.
Well, the government does seem to have engineered a shortage of criminal barristers too, and we do not need anything like as many of those as we do doctors.
You really have swallowed it hook line haven't you? I am really surprised that you are so supportive of a private school dominated elite lol.
That said, you are not alone. Doctors are the last bastion of deference. Watch the BBC interview someone from the BMA and it is like the deference that used to be shown to politicians in the 1950s. And do you know what? The doctors unions know it. They are not accountable, because no-one questions their obvious vested interests.
Not quite hook, line and sinker. I've said before, and again on this thread, that medical schools are recruiting the wrong people. However, we are where we are, and that is with an NHS like a Swiss cheese.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
As I have said before, it isn't racism, its jingoism. The racism used to be there of course, and growing up in an east Lancashire township we saw plenty of racial unrest caused by the pig-ignorant policies of previous councils and the pig-ignorance of some of the older residents. But that is the past.
What we have instead is fear of the other. The other isn't defined by race, it is simply not being me and mine. The north has a real problem with the south and southerners. Lancashire and Yorkshire share a deep-rooted dislike despite their obvious mass similarities. Sheffield was trialling the Hunger Games districting long before the book or the movie, as was Washington with predictable results. Thornaby was described rightly as full of "parochial bigots" by an old man born and raised there, with the town Mayor ranting drunk on Facebook about how outsiders do not understand the town "and never will".
Racism is simply the wrong label.
Would you describe it as a loss of national cohesion?
Yes, and I've described it before as fallout from the loss of empire. We used to rule so much of the globe that the sun never set on the empire. We've lost all of that and the prestige that goes with it, and instead see so much of the country get grimy and unkempt and visibly poorer than so many other countries we can now easily visit.
So our traditional "we are better than you" confidence is now a "we used to be better than you" resentment. When people claim it is racism they miss the rather basic fact that so often the "race" being othered is white Europeans like us. It is not racism, but it is prejudice.
Spent a couple of days in Frankfurt this week. Coming home even London - our wealthy capital - looked really poor and grubby. Except for the Elizabeth Line, of course, using that feels like visiting a foreign country.
Frankfurt has a smaller population even than West London, the wealthiest part of the capital.
It doesn't have poorer bits like East London and South London to the same extent
What’s the UK’s Frankfurt?
The Isle of Hot Dogs.
Post of the day! A lot of pb puns are a bit lame, but that is a real banger and certainly cuts the mustard.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
As a junior analyst I worked from 7am to 10pm fairly often despite my contract hours being 8am to 5pm, I got paid fuck all to do it as well. Junior doctoring is exactly the same, short term shite while you're in your 20s so you can climb the earnings ladder and once you hit 30 you've got a substantial income.
If we're going to change the model to pay more at an earlier stage then pay later in medical careers needs to fall.
What I don't understand is why doctors think they should be treated any differently to other high yielding industry, all lawyers, financiers, analysts etc... will start on shit wages for long hours, it's called paying one's dues. Doctors seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
A question for Foxy, involving absolute pie in the sky thinking and as with everything I opine on on PB I know absolutely nothing about, is there a theoretical case for the following?
The gov build an absolutely ginormous super hospital with thousands of beds on an old military base or airfield.
The super hospital is also a teaching hospital for huge numbers doctors and nurses and is built from the start with all singing and dancing accommodation to house them and instructors in.
They get their accommodation and training for free as long as they work there for an agreed period of time in order to ensure the system gets its money’s worth out of them.
The super hospital benefits from economies and efficiencies of scale so it can have all the kit needed for everything hopefully then resulting in much quicker “service”.
Patients can have the option of going to this hospital miles away from home and family to speed up their treatment (I personally would prefer this as I’m grim and wouldn’t want visitors whilst I’m in hospital and there must be a few more grinches like me around). It can also be used as overflow in emergencies.
Result is a reduction in pressure on hospitals everywhere else, a potential quick route for those who don’t mind travelling for it and an increased pipeline of doctors and nurses available.
I’m sure that it’s totally impossible or unworkable but maybe some sort of solution.
The Scottish government built such a hospital. It has been an unmitigated and expensive disaster.
That’s a shame - any key reasons why it was a disaster or is it just that such a thing cannot work?
Would also want some more proof on it than just the jaundiced view of one overpaid doctor in England
Yes and it was down to the failings of the architects and contractors involved in the design, nothing whatsoever to do with the principle. No idea if doctors were involved but more than likely were also. I believe it is working well now and the principle of a centre of excellence has to be a good idea.
“I just don’t think that’s a sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement. I would not want to see American troops involved there. But the idea that I think somehow Russia was justified [in invading] – that’s nonsense.”
So hard to see how he differs from Biden on this.
His initial remarks were pretty clear and unambiguous in their implications (I dont recall the accusation being that he thought the invasion justified). That's not a clarification he's made it's a shift because he got pushback.
Clarify is one of the most abused words in politics. People use it to mean 'how dare you criticise me for what I said, I meant something else entirely and it's your fault for assuming otherwise'.
What were the clear and unambiguous implications of his initial remarks in terms of what he would have actually done differently to Biden? His initial remarks seem to me to be entirely ambiguous and unclear, and his latest 'clarification' not much clearer.
It was sufficiently clear to his Senate Republican colleagues that his remarks meant he would likely scale back support, a position advanced by others in the party, so that they felt the need to criticise him about it.
If it were at all ambiguous they would not have felt that need, they'd have attacked the media for mischaracterising his remarks, as he is now lamely attempting.
They didn't, because it was obvious who he was trying to appeal to.
What's amusing is any articles saying he was right about what he said, which he is now saying is not what they thought.
Sure, but my point is that his original remarks were unclear and ambiguous in terms of what he would actually do differently to Biden. On specifics, AIUI, he has only said that he is against sending US troops to fight in Ukraine, and that he is opposed to sending F16s and 'long-range missiles', which seems so far to be exactly the same as Biden's policy.
His original remarks were that the US had no national interest in the 'territorial dispute'.
That's very different to Biden's position.
The claim seems to be he didn't set out specifics of what he'd do differently. But his remarks were widely interpreted, not merely by opponents, as signalling he would act differently. He has now sought to clarify what he meant, which shows he knows it was interpreted he would act differently.
So I dont see the unfairness in interpreting what he said as that he would act differently, regardless of whether he was specific. If I said all doctors are lazy swindlers it would not be unreasonable for people to infer my likely position on junior doctor strikes.
I don't care at all if people are unfair to DeSantis, I think he's an arsehole. But as he specifically said he was opposed to sending US troops and F16s to Ukraine, it seems a bit of a jump to say he is opposed to what the US is currently actually sending, no?
That is not what I said, and it is not what most media reports said - the implication was he would scale back support, which is not quite the same thing as saying opposing the current level (though the person he made the remarks to thinks so), as it applies to future supplies.
He is trying to act as though all the criticism was at the extreme end, which I don't doubt happened somewhere on the internet, like that he thought the invasion justified.
I really don't understand the problem here - his words were widely interpreted by people who have reason to be positive and friendly towards him as signalling he would probably scale back support, or did not see it as a crucial issue. He has now u-turned/clarified however he wants to put it. The clarification proves that his words were easily and reasonably interpreted another way, hence the need for him to make it. Like any politician he then whinges that people took his words at face value.
You don't care if people are unfair to DeSantis, fine, but I don't think it even is unfair to point out that his words were very easily taken as signalling he would support scaling back support, by political colleagues of his even, and I think he and you are a being a bit disingenuous in suggesting that he did not want people to think that. Given the situation he is in and who he is up against, his words, where he wa, and who he said the words to, they were taken in the context they were given, as he must have intended - he's now doing what all politicians do and claiming oh lord no he did not mean that.
If he did not want people to think what most did after his remarks then he could very easily have put it another way. He did not, and the most likely explanation for a talented politician, is he meant what he appeared to mean, and gave himself scope to 'clarify' his remarks later.
A question for Foxy, involving absolute pie in the sky thinking and as with everything I opine on on PB I know absolutely nothing about, is there a theoretical case for the following?
The gov build an absolutely ginormous super hospital with thousands of beds on an old military base or airfield.
RAF Wittering would be good. Right on the A1 and it's smack in the middle of Leaverstan where people smerk tabs and eat chips thereby requiring frequent hospital visits,
So...those places where people don't smerk tabs and eat chips can have their hospitals closed, because tofu and quinoa and smashed avacoda keep all ailments at bay?
Dura_Ace's comment about Wittering and the area it's in is hilariously stupid. He doesn't know the area very well at all. The glories of Stamford immediately to the north, Rutland on its doorstep. Sacrewell Mill just down the road.
A question for Foxy, involving absolute pie in the sky thinking and as with everything I opine on on PB I know absolutely nothing about, is there a theoretical case for the following?
The gov build an absolutely ginormous super hospital with thousands of beds on an old military base or airfield.
The super hospital is also a teaching hospital for huge numbers doctors and nurses and is built from the start with all singing and dancing accommodation to house them and instructors in.
They get their accommodation and training for free as long as they work there for an agreed period of time in order to ensure the system gets its money’s worth out of them.
The super hospital benefits from economies and efficiencies of scale so it can have all the kit needed for everything hopefully then resulting in much quicker “service”.
Patients can have the option of going to this hospital miles away from home and family to speed up their treatment (I personally would prefer this as I’m grim and wouldn’t want visitors whilst I’m in hospital and there must be a few more grinches like me around). It can also be used as overflow in emergencies.
Result is a reduction in pressure on hospitals everywhere else, a potential quick route for those who don’t mind travelling for it and an increased pipeline of doctors and nurses available.
I’m sure that it’s totally impossible or unworkable but maybe some sort of solution.
The Scottish government built such a hospital. It has been an unmitigated and expensive disaster.
That’s a shame - any key reasons why it was a disaster or is it just that such a thing cannot work?
Would also want some more proof on it than just the jaundiced view of one overpaid doctor in England
Yes and it was down to the failings of the architects and contractors involved in the design, nothing whatsoever to do with the principle. No idea if doctors were involved but more than likely were also. I believe it is working well now and the principle of a centre of excellence has to be a good idea.
Mega organisations tend to have mega problems. And are much harder to turn round/fix.
The Soviet Union liked the One Big Facility. Which universally was a failure, as a policy.
I've just been sent a photo of a Tory campaign leaflet in Stockton on Tees, objecting to what they claim is a Labour plot to house Asylum Seekers. What is fascinating is the language. In essence the Tory plan is "firm but fair" to deport anyone arriving illegally (i.e. on a boat).
As we know, there are no legal routes to get here from most of these countries and no legal route will be put in until the boats stop. They even praise the people coming to claim asylum from Afghanistan despite there being no legal route for people from Afghanistan to come and claim asylum.
They go on to condemn criminal gangs and link the proposed asylum seekers to being trafficked by these gangs. And that they won't allow them to come here despite praising the people of Stockton for having "always welcomed those seeking refuge on a level more so than other areas".
So we know the script. The illegal Illegal Asylum bill allows parliament to set a cap, and the Tories want to set the cap at zero. Because if they don't want any accommodation for anyone who arrives legally, and anyone arriving is trafficked by criminal gangs and will be deported, then there will be no asylum seekers.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
As a junior analyst I worked from 7am to 10pm fairly often despite my contract hours being 8am to 5pm, I got paid fuck all to do it as well. Junior doctoring is exactly the same, short term shite while you're in your 20s so you can climb the earnings ladder and once you hit 30 you've got a substantial income.
If we're going to change the model to pay more at an earlier stage then pay later in medical careers needs to fall.
What I don't understand is why doctors think they should be treated any differently to other high yielding industry, all lawyers, financiers, analysts etc... will start on shit wages for long hours, it's called paying one's dues. Doctors seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
What is the error rate for doctors working >75 hr weeks vs those working <50 hr weeks?
I know which I'd prefer to be treated by, especially if surgical. For training and gaining experience I would also imagine knowledge can be assimilated more effectively if >75 hr weeks are avoided.
In a lot of city type jobs the working ultra long hours is more a competitive endeavour to find the strongest and most committed for the future rather than about productivity itself, in my experience at least. That works because the age profile is essentially lots of young and hungry workers backed by smaller layer of mgmt.
Not necessary or desirable in medicine where we want to retain as many doctors as possible once we have spent a load training them up and have shortages.
Yesterday I read some posts on here that suggested the harsher people fleeing in dingys (sic) were treated the better Sunaks figures. It was written by someone who is apparently well versed in the Red Wall and Tory thinking. It seemed to be written approvingly though that's not important. But what a disgusting indictment of this country and the voters they attract.
I missed that comment, but I think its utterly preposterous and wrong and whoever said that knows absolutely nothing about the Red Wall.
Certain commentators on this site, especially some who live in the South in deepest blue territory, seem to project their own prejudices onto the North/Red Wall.
As someone who lives up here may I reject them all. There are a small minority of racists in the North, like there are everywhere else, but that is not what the Red Wall is and its not the North. Anyone who is saying that is not well versed whatsoever in the Red Wall and has almost certainly never lived here, never campaigned here, and never knocked up voters here.
As I have said before, it isn't racism, its jingoism. The racism used to be there of course, and growing up in an east Lancashire township we saw plenty of racial unrest caused by the pig-ignorant policies of previous councils and the pig-ignorance of some of the older residents. But that is the past.
What we have instead is fear of the other. The other isn't defined by race, it is simply not being me and mine. The north has a real problem with the south and southerners. Lancashire and Yorkshire share a deep-rooted dislike despite their obvious mass similarities. Sheffield was trialling the Hunger Games districting long before the book or the movie, as was Washington with predictable results. Thornaby was described rightly as full of "parochial bigots" by an old man born and raised there, with the town Mayor ranting drunk on Facebook about how outsiders do not understand the town "and never will".
Racism is simply the wrong label.
Would you describe it as a loss of national cohesion?
Yes, and I've described it before as fallout from the loss of empire. We used to rule so much of the globe that the sun never set on the empire. We've lost all of that and the prestige that goes with it, and instead see so much of the country get grimy and unkempt and visibly poorer than so many other countries we can now easily visit.
So our traditional "we are better than you" confidence is now a "we used to be better than you" resentment. When people claim it is racism they miss the rather basic fact that so often the "race" being othered is white Europeans like us. It is not racism, but it is prejudice.
Spent a couple of days in Frankfurt this week. Coming home even London - our wealthy capital - looked really poor and grubby. Except for the Elizabeth Line, of course, using that feels like visiting a foreign country.
Frankfurt has a smaller population even than West London, the wealthiest part of the capital.
It doesn't have poorer bits like East London and South London to the same extent
What’s the UK’s Frankfurt?
The Isle of Hot Dogs.
Post of the day! A lot of pb puns are a bit lame, but that is a real banger and certainly cuts the mustard.
Here is the reality on doctors' pay. The UK is not the highest payer in Europe for hospital doctors but it is well above the median. It is also considerably higher than the nearest comparable system, Sweden, which has a nationalised system unlike most other "mixed economy" health systems
Additionally UK doctors have the safest jobs than any other walk of life, even by public sector standards. It is almost impossible to sack a hospital doctor in the NHS, even when they are incompetent. They also have highly lucrative pension schemes which see them retire on pensions that give them a take home payment that is in excess of double what the average taxpayer earns, and hospital consultants often also have lucrative private practices that are effectively conflicts of interest, but the NHS turns a blind eye to it.
Most so-called "junior" doctors (those below consultant level) earn salaries that are very comparative to other non-partner level professionals such as lawyers and accountants that are outside the distorted salaries found in London.
As for GPs: they are raking it in! The reality is that if doctors were a little less greedy there would be the possibility to be more generous to other health professionals who are probably underpaid.
In summary, those that are swallowing the line of the doctors unions that they are underpaid, I have a bridge to sell you.
BIB: that GPs are raking in £80,000 a year does not mean junior hospital doctors are not underpaid (or overworked or working antisocial hours).
Or should be satisfied going into work for below-inflation pay rises while those who they are caring for are getting higher percentage pay rises than they are.
If people are striking despite being paid too much they should be sacked and replaced with others who want to do their job for less, but if there's no others to do the job then they have the leverage and should be paid a reasonable rate. How is that any worse than a cohort of voters using their voting leverage to ensure that all the money available goes to them, while all the taxes go on others?
People need to take responsibility for themselves first and foremost. If you want someone to do a job then you need to pay them a rate they're willing to work for - or in a free market you can find someone else instead. But nobody has a right to demand others work for them on incomes they're not happy to be paid.
Junior doctors want a 25% payrise, the national average rise in 6%
Have you never taken part in negotiations?
25% is an entirely appropriate starting point to demand when the Government are offering others 11% and you only 2%.
If the Government want to short-change you by 9%, then start demanding much higher than what you will actually accept, then meet in the middle. Government says 2%, you say 25%, meet in the middle at 13% or just 2% higher than what the Government is prepared to pay those who aren't working for a living, and you have an agreement.
If the Government didn't want strikes they shouldn't have offered some people 11% and others 2%.
They didn't. The only people getting 10% or more from the government are those who earn much less than junior doctors ie state pensioners, those on benefits or minimum wage or junior criminal lawyers doing legal aid
Yep, those who are not working. State pensioners aren't all earning much less than junior doctors since the taxpayers money going to them is on top of, not instead of, any other pensions they have.
If people not working are getting 10% or more, then so should those who are working.
Those who are working should never be getting less than those who are working. If 10% is the baseline for non-workers, then its the minimum those who are working should be getting. Since when was the Conservative Party the Party for people on benefits rather than people who work for a living?
People working for a living all earn more than those on benefits, the minimum wage after all is going up by 10% exactly the same as benefits are going up by.
Just unlike Truss backing libertarians like you One Nation Tories like Hunt and Sunak don't want to force the poorest in out society into deeper poverty given rising cost of living
Bullshit.
Someone with a high defined benefit pension and the state pension can be earning much more than someone working for a living - and paying much less percentage in tax too since their earnings won't be subject to either the graduate tax or National Insurance.
So you're talking out of your arse.
Only the state pension went up by 10% NOT defined benefit pensions
How much did the limits for private pension contributions for the wealthiest go up by? 50% was it? Plus scrapping of lifetime allowance.
Mainly to encourage doctors not to retire at 55 but to keeping paying into their enormous pensions tax free!!!!
"Mainly": lots of other people too. An dz more IHT evasion for the wealthy. YOu must be absolutely delighted.
The daft thing is that this could have been done differently (at least for the Doctors which was the key issue) without getting rid of the lifetime limit or increasing the annual limit. They simply needed to allow doctors, once they had hit the lifetime limit, not to have made further pension contributions and not to have accumulated more years. It would also save the treasury money in not having to top up the notional pot with the notional NHS contribution, which when it comes to paying out the pension usually become a very expensive real costs.
Wake me up when Labour and the Tories are both in the 30's. That will be game on....
Next month we should have an "Outlier" showing that
I see we have returned to overanalysing hypothetical polling where the Tories have a scored enhanced by an indeterminate margin, for reasons unstated, at an undefined point in the future.
BJO please explain.
Only time will tell.
But next month sees every Pensioner get a 10% uplift, same for people on benefits, sees the Sun come out, and variable energy bills take a seasonal dip. just think a steady swingback is underway
Surely you must have spotted we are passed
peak SKS?
If you mean, do I expect Labour to get 50% at a general election, then the answer is “of course not”, but such scores were chiefly a function of She Who Must Not Be Named ‘leading’ the Tories. Labour’s poll ratings remains very healthy, as much as it clearly pains you to see.
The trend is not your friend....
Personally I see it as very unlikely that Rishi wont add at least another 5% to the 30ish the Tories are currently at (apart from with People Polling) by the time of the next GE
If that comes directly from LAB we are in for a close run thing
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
So junior doctor's lost a month's pay. The economy suffered a once in a generation shock, due to the combined effects of Covid and Ukraine. Most people suffered a shock to their personal incomes as a result. That you think using suffering of sick people gives a special case for getting your way when others can't is rather reprehensible.
No, the Juniors loss of a month's pay each year is an annual recurring event. Hence the need for a real terms rise.
What’s the starting salary of a junior doctor, and what is their annual increment in the first five years?
Starting rate is £14 per hour at F1, going to £28 per hour with 10 years experience.
Ultimately though it is about market forces. If you don't pay enough, you don't get the staff. Isn't that what Brexit was about? Creating a high wage, high skills workforce?
Ah so I have my facts/perception wrong. After 10 years a JD is earning £70k? (28 x 10 x 250)?
The way that junior doctors are treated is scandalous, and it is not just the pathetic pay but the bullying culture of management.
They start with very substantial debts having studied for six years; in most jobs there will be irregular and antisocial hours, which means that they need to have a car which is reliable (there isn't much public transport when a shift finishes at 2 a.m). Frequent changes of hospital with all the disruption and expense of moving. They have to pay £420 per annum to the GMC and to pay substantial charges for some of the training courses which are compulsory , and for their postgraduate exams. If they work an antisocial shift they have 30 minutes pay deducted because they are supposed to have a break after six hours; they don't get the break because the work is continuous but they still get the money cut. Frequently no facilities at night even for a cup of tea. Not provided with proper PPE during Covid. No allocated car parking, and indeed usually have to pay the hospital for it. Need I go on.
Of my recent, excellent, trainees, several have taken up consultant jobs abroad.
My daughter is an FY1, as is my son in law. They are bright and hard-working. He was a professional sportsman before he studied medicine, she plays international sport in a competitive and physical sport; they are not shrinking violets. In fact they are exactly the sort of doctors that the future NHS needs. They are already looking at moving overseas when they have completed their training. Pay for doctors in the Republic of Ireland is twice that of the NHS. Pay in Canada, Australia, NZ, Middle East even higher and plenty of vacancies.
The mood among the junior doctors is absolute determination. The 98% vote for strike action is unprecedented.
Sounds like some bollocks in there, I don't belie for a second they cannot get tea, wards all have facilities to make tea , drinks etc. They also get up to 2x rates for unsocial , extra hours etc. They should be required to provide a minimum period of service for the amount of money spent training them for their 6 figure futures. Sounds like a lots of spoilt brats gong into it thinking it is a cushy number.
Who to believe?
A trainer and parent of doctors?
Or a grumpy old git who regularly makes it clear that he deserves his wealth and that most other people don't?
What you're suggesting is dangerous in the extreme!
We should listen to Dura and Topping on military matters? We should listen to you, yoedethur and Dixie on teaching? We should listen to turbo, bondegezou and me(?!) on academic matters and science We should listen to foxy and Franklyn on health issues We should listen to TSE, David etc on matters legal? We should listen to Malc on scotch and turnips? We should listen to Nick on Westminster affairs and politics?
Nah, away with you, you heretic!
And me on double-entry bookkeeping and the meaning of life. Although they are really one and the same thing.
Sturgeon however departs with a very healthy +8 rating
New leader boost expected though?
Possible if Forbes gets it. Sturgeon's high rating is due to way she presented during Covid. Her domestic record is being widely derided by the commentariat. I think her ratings will decline over time though not as precipitously as Blair's did.
It's Iraq that did for Tony's rep, isn't it. There's no obvious equivalent for Nicola Sturgeon.
What might do for NS's reputation (she does not have the power, thankfully, to invade a few large middle eastern countries on a whim) is: prison population, GRR, drug deaths, ferries, internal party stuff, failure to get support for the one key project of separation, education standards, court room show boating including the Supreme Court, running out of other people's money.
Sounds like a reverse 'what did the Romans ever do for us?'
“I just don’t think that’s a sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement. I would not want to see American troops involved there. But the idea that I think somehow Russia was justified [in invading] – that’s nonsense.”
So hard to see how he differs from Biden on this.
His initial remarks were pretty clear and unambiguous in their implications (I dont recall the accusation being that he thought the invasion justified). That's not a clarification he's made it's a shift because he got pushback.
Clarify is one of the most abused words in politics. People use it to mean 'how dare you criticise me for what I said, I meant something else entirely and it's your fault for assuming otherwise'.
What were the clear and unambiguous implications of his initial remarks in terms of what he would have actually done differently to Biden? His initial remarks seem to me to be entirely ambiguous and unclear, and his latest 'clarification' not much clearer.
It was sufficiently clear to his Senate Republican colleagues that his remarks meant he would likely scale back support, a position advanced by others in the party, so that they felt the need to criticise him about it.
If it were at all ambiguous they would not have felt that need, they'd have attacked the media for mischaracterising his remarks, as he is now lamely attempting.
They didn't, because it was obvious who he was trying to appeal to.
What's amusing is any articles saying he was right about what he said, which he is now saying is not what they thought.
Sure, but my point is that his original remarks were unclear and ambiguous in terms of what he would actually do differently to Biden. On specifics, AIUI, he has only said that he is against sending US troops to fight in Ukraine, and that he is opposed to sending F16s and 'long-range missiles', which seems so far to be exactly the same as Biden's policy.
His original remarks were that the US had no national interest in the 'territorial dispute'.
That's very different to Biden's position.
He seems to have no idea what principles the USA was fighting for in WW2.
But equally, the DeSantis position is not that far removed from that of America before Pearl Harbour made them take sides.
There's always been a strong isolationist element in US politics, counterbalancing those who believe the US has a global role and responsibility.
In some respects, it's the post WWII foreign policy consensus that is the aberration - though isolationism is utterly impractical in today's world, in a way that it wasn't a century back.
DeSantis isn't isolationist, he just wants to focus on containing Xi's China more than Putin's Russia. Indeed so does Trump
I'm not sure DeSantis was, up until now, anything other than out of his depth when it comes to foreign policy. He's starting to evolve policy positions to suit his tilt at the nomination.
It’s the major difference between being governor and being president. The latter spends a huge proportion of his time on foreign policy issues, and someone wanting the promotion needs to at least have thought through the major foreign policy issues of the day.
If RDS wants to stand for the top job (and I’m still not sure he’s going for it in 2024, rather than waiting for 2028), then he’ll need to be spending a lot more time researching and getting briefings on world affairs.
A question for Foxy, involving absolute pie in the sky thinking and as with everything I opine on on PB I know absolutely nothing about, is there a theoretical case for the following?
The gov build an absolutely ginormous super hospital with thousands of beds on an old military base or airfield.
The super hospital is also a teaching hospital for huge numbers doctors and nurses and is built from the start with all singing and dancing accommodation to house them and instructors in.
They get their accommodation and training for free as long as they work there for an agreed period of time in order to ensure the system gets its money’s worth out of them.
The super hospital benefits from economies and efficiencies of scale so it can have all the kit needed for everything hopefully then resulting in much quicker “service”.
Patients can have the option of going to this hospital miles away from home and family to speed up their treatment (I personally would prefer this as I’m grim and wouldn’t want visitors whilst I’m in hospital and there must be a few more grinches like me around). It can also be used as overflow in emergencies.
Result is a reduction in pressure on hospitals everywhere else, a potential quick route for those who don’t mind travelling for it and an increased pipeline of doctors and nurses available.
I’m sure that it’s totally impossible or unworkable but maybe some sort of solution.
The Scottish government built such a hospital. It has been an unmitigated and expensive disaster.
It’s an awful idea. Hospitals should be smaller and local. It’s generally easier for doctors to travel to different hospitals than it is for often elderly and poor patients to have to travel miles to attend or for their family and friends to visit. Mind you, I’m biased. I have only once been to the huge Glasgow hospital in question, got lost and couldn’t find my way back to the car - which was parked on waste ground because everybody is supposed to use public transport.
A question for Foxy, involving absolute pie in the sky thinking and as with everything I opine on on PB I know absolutely nothing about, is there a theoretical case for the following?
The gov build an absolutely ginormous super hospital with thousands of beds on an old military base or airfield.
RAF Wittering would be good. Right on the A1 and it's smack in the middle of Leaverstan where people smerk tabs and eat chips thereby requiring frequent hospital visits,
So...those places where people don't smerk tabs and eat chips can have their hospitals closed, because tofu and quinoa and smashed avacoda keep all ailments at bay?
Dura_Ace's comment about Wittering and the area it's in is hilariously stupid. He doesn't know the area very well at all. The glories of Stamford immediately to the north, Rutland on its doorstep. Sacrewell Mill just down the road.
Mate have you been to actual Wittering? It's the base and then 10 curry chip shops. And a saveloy's throw from Pboro. It is also of course a state of mind.
“I just don’t think that’s a sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement. I would not want to see American troops involved there. But the idea that I think somehow Russia was justified [in invading] – that’s nonsense.”
So hard to see how he differs from Biden on this.
His initial remarks were pretty clear and unambiguous in their implications (I dont recall the accusation being that he thought the invasion justified). That's not a clarification he's made it's a shift because he got pushback.
Clarify is one of the most abused words in politics. People use it to mean 'how dare you criticise me for what I said, I meant something else entirely and it's your fault for assuming otherwise'.
What were the clear and unambiguous implications of his initial remarks in terms of what he would have actually done differently to Biden? His initial remarks seem to me to be entirely ambiguous and unclear, and his latest 'clarification' not much clearer.
It was sufficiently clear to his Senate Republican colleagues that his remarks meant he would likely scale back support, a position advanced by others in the party, so that they felt the need to criticise him about it.
If it were at all ambiguous they would not have felt that need, they'd have attacked the media for mischaracterising his remarks, as he is now lamely attempting.
They didn't, because it was obvious who he was trying to appeal to.
What's amusing is any articles saying he was right about what he said, which he is now saying is not what they thought.
Sure, but my point is that his original remarks were unclear and ambiguous in terms of what he would actually do differently to Biden. On specifics, AIUI, he has only said that he is against sending US troops to fight in Ukraine, and that he is opposed to sending F16s and 'long-range missiles', which seems so far to be exactly the same as Biden's policy.
His original remarks were that the US had no national interest in the 'territorial dispute'.
That's very different to Biden's position.
The claim seems to be he didn't set out specifics of what he'd do differently. But his remarks were widely interpreted, not merely by opponents, as signalling he would act differently. He has now sought to clarify what he meant, which shows he knows it was interpreted he would act differently.
So I dont see the unfairness in interpreting what he said as that he would act differently, regardless of whether he was specific. If I said all doctors are lazy swindlers it would not be unreasonable for people to infer my likely position on junior doctor strikes.
I don't care at all if people are unfair to DeSantis, I think he's an arsehole. But as he specifically said he was opposed to sending US troops and F16s to Ukraine, it seems a bit of a jump to say he is opposed to what the US is currently actually sending, no?
That is not what I said, and it is not what most media reports said - the implication was he would scale back support, which is not quite the same thing as saying opposing the current level (though the person he made the remarks to thinks so), as it applies to future supplies.
He is trying to act as though all the criticism was at the extreme end, which I don't doubt happened somewhere on the internet, like that he thought the invasion justified.
I really don't understand the problem here - his words were widely interpreted by people who have reason to be positive and friendly towards him as signalling he would probably scale back support, or did not see it as a crucial issue. He has not u-turned/clarified however he wants to put it. The clarification proves that his words were easily and reasonably interpreted another way, hence the need for him to make it.
You don't care if people are unfair to DeSantis, fine, but I don't think it even is unfair to point out that his words were very easily taken as signalling he would support scaling back support, by political colleagues of his even, and I think he and you are a being a bit disingenuous in suggesting that he did not want people to think that. Given the situation he is in and who he is up against, his words, where he wa, and who he said the words to, they were taken in the context they were given, as he must have intended - he's now doing what all politicians do and claiming oh lord no he did not mean that.
I have only consistently pointed out that he hasn't so far said that he would do anything different to Biden. I have never said it is unfair to interpret his words that way. And I haven't suggested he didn't want people to think that. But I disagree with you that his original remarks were clear and unambiguous.
I think he thought he was being clever - finding a form of words that would appeal to Tucker Carlson's viewers while not actually reversing any of his previous positions on Ukraine. Which is why I said his remarks were ambiguous and unclear, and disagreed with you that they were 'clear and unambiguous'. But he screwed it up by going too far - especially by saying 'territorial dispute'.
In terms of context: he says he thinks 'further entanglement' is not in the US interest, at the same time as saying:
'the U.S. should not provide assistance that could require the deployment of American troops or enable Ukraine to engage in offensive operations beyond its borders. F-16s and long-range missiles should therefore be off the table.'
So it seems not completely mad to interpret his opposition to 'further entanglement' as meaning opposition to sending US troops and F16s, because they might lead to 'a hot war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.'
A question for Foxy, involving absolute pie in the sky thinking and as with everything I opine on on PB I know absolutely nothing about, is there a theoretical case for the following?
The gov build an absolutely ginormous super hospital with thousands of beds on an old military base or airfield.
RAF Wittering would be good. Right on the A1 and it's smack in the middle of Leaverstan where people smerk tabs and eat chips thereby requiring frequent hospital visits,
So...those places where people don't smerk tabs and eat chips can have their hospitals closed, because tofu and quinoa and smashed avacoda keep all ailments at bay?
Dura_Ace's comment about Wittering and the area it's in is hilariously stupid. He doesn't know the area very well at all. The glories of Stamford immediately to the north, Rutland on its doorstep. Sacrewell Mill just down the road.
Mate have you been to actual Wittering? It's the base and then 10 curry chip shops. And a saveloy's throw from Pboro. It is also of course a state of mind.
Not actually on the base itself, no, but as it happens I have walked and run through the military estate next door. I know the area reasonably well. But he comment was about it being in the middle of 'Leaverstan', with a load of stupid bigoted tripe afterwards.
Wake me up when Labour and the Tories are both in the 30's. That will be game on....
Next month we should have an "Outlier" showing that
I see we have returned to overanalysing hypothetical polling where the Tories have a scored enhanced by an indeterminate margin, for reasons unstated, at an undefined point in the future.
BJO please explain.
Only time will tell.
But next month sees every Pensioner get a 10% uplift, same for people on benefits, sees the Sun come out, and variable energy bills take a seasonal dip. just think a steady swingback is underway
Surely you must have spotted we are passed
peak SKS?
If you mean, do I expect Labour to get 50% at a general election, then the answer is “of course not”, but such scores were chiefly a function of She Who Must Not Be Named ‘leading’ the Tories. Labour’s poll ratings remains very healthy, as much as it clearly pains you to see.
The trend is not your friend....
The trend for Labour voteshare is static. What is this "trend" of which you speak.
Mind you that WASPI lot have been fighting pension equality for years and got virtually nowhere. A possible compensation not amounting to a great deal.
Part of the issue seems to be that a specific campaign group focused only on increasing pay won a majority of seats
But where you have got one union demanding 35% when even one else is getting mid single digits plus a one off payment there is no basis for negotiation.
They are just being unreasonable
And as inflation drops,
No, no, no. Inflation dropping does NOT eliminate the need for pay rises. Deflation is what does that.
It’s exasperating when people make this error. Almost as bad as that stupid ‘average energy bills are capped at X.’ Who the fuck cares? Give us the actual price per unit and standing charge rate.
If the junior doctors think they have the muscle to get a massively above current inflation settlement to try and make up for a series of under inflation settlements, let them try. But no government can cave to that. And as we are seeing, they won't even discuss the possibility.
On the contrary, the BMA has said 35% (pay restoration to 2008 levels) is their opening position and objective. It is Barclay that is refusing to even make an offer. That is unreasonable.
The Juniors got 2% last year, with 11% CPI, a real terms pay cut of 9%, equivalent to a month's pay in the year. No wonder they voted 98% to strike, and the strike was so solid.
Barclay refusing to even make any sort of counter offer, and pissing them about on negotiations is why they announced the strike over the Easter week.
It’s not unreasonable.
They have said - not a formal offer - that negotiations would be on the basis of a deal that would be the same structure as the other medical professionals
If there is no landing zone for a deal you don’t have to counter an offer
In that case the strikes will go on.
Incidentally, if the negotiations for Consultants and GPs don't progress by 1st April, we too are balloting to strike. 86% voted to strike in the BMA indicative ballot a few weeks ago.
( I voted for action short of strike myself, such as an over time ban and refusal to cover rota gaps, or go to management meetings etc).
Sure, the strikes will go on until the union leadership are willing to negotiate sensibly
Trying to step away from your personal interest - do you think the government can feasibly accept a 35% increase regardless of how justified it might be? What do you think the implications would be for other parts of the public sector?
I think the government can and should commit to a real terms pay rise to reverse the real terms pay cuts of the last few years, even if not back to 2008 rates.
There is a massive retention problem for Juniors. GPs too think their new contract unreasonable.
That’s not the question I asked
I’m actually interested in your views on the negotiating tactics - I think the BMA have screwed it up
The way Barclay kept changing the date and time of the negotiations, eventually allocating a 30 minute slot at less than 24 hours notice shows he wasn't serious about negotiating.
The BMA Juniors got a 98% vote to support strike action over this issue. It isn't a tiny group of activists. The strike was pretty universally observed too, showing it not to be just saloon bar talk.
You’ve just taken the BMA’s blog as gospel.
I don’t know if it is complete. It could be that there was discussion in the background on the structure (ie rise plus one time payment) and that was driving the changes in timing.
Still an utterly ridiculous poll. All those Greens tilting to Ref and Con is a bit of a giggle.
Without in any way wishing to cast doubt, and I see they are signed up to the BPC, who exactly are People Polling? They have a limited website, and only polls back to last year. Are they a newcomer? If so, how are they balancing their responses? Are they polling online? Over the phone?
They seem so far out of step. That may be a good thing. They may be correct, but I suspect they are not.
Mind you that WASPI lot have been fighting pension equality for years and got virtually nowhere. A possible compensation not amounting to a great deal.
Frankly I find their case laughable. Its illegal to discriminate by gender except when pensions are concerned? Eff off. Women already tend to live longer (biology). There is a case for an older retirement age for women, not younger...
Comments
Just train more doctors and improve conditions so that the job is more enjoyable and less reliant on high earnings. I know that can't be completed in 5 years, but as a country if we never do the things that work but take more than 5 years, then that is how we end up in managed decline.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/glasgow-hospital-inquiry-police-probe-27384353
I dont think he will maintain that personally and you do have a lot of faith in him though so thats all good.
One of us will be proved right.
I think Lab will have a mediocre set of LE results which we dont have long to wait for now.
If we're going to change the model to pay more at an earlier stage then pay later in medical careers needs to fall.
What I don't understand is why doctors think they should be treated any differently to other high yielding industry, all lawyers, financiers, analysts etc... will start on shit wages for long hours, it's called paying one's dues. Doctors seem to want to have their cake and eat it.
I believe it is working well now and the principle of a centre of excellence has to be a good idea.
He is trying to act as though all the criticism was at the extreme end, which I don't doubt happened somewhere on the internet, like that he thought the invasion justified.
I really don't understand the problem here - his words were widely interpreted by people who have reason to be positive and friendly towards him as signalling he would probably scale back support, or did not see it as a crucial issue. He has now u-turned/clarified however he wants to put it. The clarification proves that his words were easily and reasonably interpreted another way, hence the need for him to make it. Like any politician he then whinges that people took his words at face value.
You don't care if people are unfair to DeSantis, fine, but I don't think it even is unfair to point out that his words were very easily taken as signalling he would support scaling back support, by political colleagues of his even, and I think he and you are a being a bit disingenuous in suggesting that he did not want people to think that. Given the situation he is in and who he is up against, his words, where he wa, and who he said the words to, they were taken in the context they were given, as he must have intended - he's now doing what all politicians do and claiming oh lord no he did not mean that.
If he did not want people to think what most did after his remarks then he could very easily have put it another way. He did not, and the most likely explanation for a talented politician, is he meant what he appeared to mean, and gave himself scope to 'clarify' his remarks later.
The Soviet Union liked the One Big Facility. Which universally was a failure, as a policy.
As we know, there are no legal routes to get here from most of these countries and no legal route will be put in until the boats stop. They even praise the people coming to claim asylum from Afghanistan despite there being no legal route for people from Afghanistan to come and claim asylum.
They go on to condemn criminal gangs and link the proposed asylum seekers to being trafficked by these gangs. And that they won't allow them to come here despite praising the people of Stockton for having "always welcomed those seeking refuge on a level more so than other areas".
So we know the script. The illegal Illegal Asylum bill allows parliament to set a cap, and the Tories want to set the cap at zero. Because if they don't want any accommodation for anyone who arrives legally, and anyone arriving is trafficked by criminal gangs and will be deported, then there will be no asylum seekers.
I know which I'd prefer to be treated by, especially if surgical. For training and gaining experience I would also imagine knowledge can be assimilated more effectively if >75 hr weeks are avoided.
In a lot of city type jobs the working ultra long hours is more a competitive endeavour to find the strongest and most committed for the future rather than about productivity itself, in my experience at least. That works because the age profile is essentially lots of young and hungry workers backed by smaller layer of mgmt.
Not necessary or desirable in medicine where we want to retain as many doctors as possible once we have spent a load training them up and have shortages.
That's nothing to what happened in London when the state pension age was pushed from 65 to 67.
If I recall correctly we all went 'huh' and carried on.
That showed the Government we would not be pushed around...
https://twitter.com/VigJimmy/status/1639218632134893572?s=20
If that comes directly from LAB we are in for a close run thing
One sight of Boris Lying and its back to square 1 for the Tories
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 49% (+3)
CON: 23% (-4)
LDEM: 10% (-1)
GRN: 6% (-)
REF: 6% (-)
via
@YouGov
, this week
Not that i will be forming a guillotine start up business
If RDS wants to stand for the top job (and I’m still not sure he’s going for it in 2024, rather than waiting for 2028), then he’ll need to be spending a lot more time researching and getting briefings on world affairs.
I think he thought he was being clever - finding a form of words that would appeal to Tucker Carlson's viewers while not actually reversing any of his previous positions on Ukraine. Which is why I said his remarks were ambiguous and unclear, and disagreed with you that they were 'clear and unambiguous'. But he screwed it up by going too far - especially by saying 'territorial dispute'.
In terms of context: he says he thinks 'further entanglement' is not in the US interest, at the same time as saying:
'the U.S. should not provide assistance that could require the deployment of American troops or enable Ukraine to engage in offensive operations beyond its borders. F-16s and long-range missiles should therefore be off the table.'
So it seems not completely mad to interpret his opposition to 'further entanglement' as meaning opposition to sending US troops and F16s, because they might lead to 'a hot war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.'
It's actually in a fairly pleasant area.
https://twitter.com/livesquawk/status/1639252522656468993?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
I don’t know if it is complete. It could be that there was discussion in the background on the structure (ie rise plus one time payment) and that was driving the changes in timing.
They seem so far out of step. That may be a good thing. They may be correct, but I suspect they are not.
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2023/03/trump-cases-manhattan-doj-guide/673506/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20230323&utm_term=The Atlantic Daily